Re: Vacuums on large busy databases

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jimn(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Francisco Reyes <lists(at)stringsutils(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Vacuums on large busy databases
Date: 2006-09-18 22:40:30
Message-ID: 20060918224030.GM47167@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:23:01AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> My setup:
> Freebsd 6.1
> Postgresql 8.1.4
> Memory: 8GB
> SATA Disks
>
> Raid 1 10 spindles (2 as hot spares)
> 500GB disks (16MB buffer), 7200 rpm
> Raid 10
>
> Raid 2 4 spindles
> 150GB 10K rpm disks
> Raid 10
>
> shared_buffers = 10000
> temp_buffers = 1500
> work_mem = 32768 # 32MB
> maintenance_work_mem = 524288 # 512MB
>
> checkpoint_segments = 64
> Just increased to 64 today.. after reading this may help. Was 5 before.
>
> pg_xlog on second raid (which sees very little activity)

BTW, on some good raid controllers (with battery backup and
write-caching), putting pg_xlog on a seperate partition doesn't really
help, so you might want to try combining everything.

Even if you stay with 2 partitions, I'd cut pg_xlog back to just a
simple mirror.
--
Jim Nasby jimn(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bucky Jordan 2006-09-18 22:40:51 Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)
Previous Message Alan Hodgson 2006-09-18 21:01:03 Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as expected)